Posted on 07/25/2008 8:45:49 PM PDT by dixiechick2000
Do I have this straight?
The higher the cost goes, the less one uses, so the bills go down.
Reduced bills equals reduced income for a company, that has had it's cost increased.
Reduced income in the face of increased costs, forces raising rates further to cover the losses, unless cuts can be made.
So, either the rates soar, and bills DO go up, regardless of "conservation"; or the system is allowed to erode to point of falling apart due to inability to pay for maintenance, repairs, or replacements, let alone add capacity to provide for a growing customer base.
Do I understand correctly, or am I missing the dancing fairy waving its magic wand somewhere along the line?
Oh, before I forget, if bills are going to go DOWN, then why is THIS necessary?
Auctioning the allowances could generate revenue that could help pay for energy efficiency measures or help low-income residents cope with energy prices.
There are already various schemes to 'aid the poor' with their energy bills; but, if they bills are supposed to DROP, then FEWER people should need such aid; and those still needing it, should need LESS of it; not a new source of revenue to give them MORE.
Pinging you to the most egregious usurption of power.
I would love to read your take on this.
The primary evidence, the essential necessary evidence, that the greenhouse effect, and by extension CO2, is causing global warming doesn't exist. If the planet is warming this is proof positive that it isn't because of the greenhouse effect.
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
This is a short and easily understandable article showing the plain truth. The hinge pin that links global temperature to the greenhouse effect is missing. It is easily measurable and hundreds of probes have done so.
Written by the man who "DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office."
It was just poorly written. I think you've got it but let me put it another way the author probably didn't think of.
The colder you are the less you pay. Seems fair doesn't it? /s
So the gist of it is, "While many are cold, few are frozen"?
Uh, yeah.
Very good! Extremely memorable.
I will adopt that this winter, when I expect it to be true.
It would appear that no Democrat in history has ever taken a course in Economics and even fewer fave ever taken a class in common sense.
Well, it certainly would have a positive effect IF we could tear down all the barriers to Nuclear and Hydroelectric power production.
Wasting natural gas and petroleum products on electric power generation is kind of stupid anyway when there are better ways to use those resources. (like heating your home)
This AGW hand has been so overplayed that it may now be possible to use it against the Green-weenie-tree-hugger communists to overthrow their weaker arguments, such as bogus endangered species suits, and nuke hysteria.
This strategy is probably already in play.
Weakness is strength. Ignorance is knowledge.
And they call us rednecks stupid!!
There could also be a surge of No. 2 oil or propane fueled home generators to produce electricity, too. It may not be affordable by everyone, but they would also grow. People will find ways around our idiot politicians.
At the end of the day, we're creating a market, not rules and regulations.
One has to admire the brass-bound arrogance it takes even to attempt to pass this egregious lie off as truth. The market, of course, already exists or we wouldn't be having this conversation. What they intend to do with it is control it with rules and regulations to the point where the people in it will behave precisely as they wish. "The power to tax is the power to destroy," said Judge Hand, and he was right. They intend to destroy what they consider a wasteful way of life. This is the crudest and most broad-reaching social engineering with the vague and unquantifiable aim of "saving the planet," and never mind the fact that not a single of the premises behind this draconian regulation machine have ever been proven.
This isn't actually environmentalism at all, it's totalitarianism. These people mean to rule. And by controlling the cost, and rationing the usage of energy they have a means to power that is at once all-pervasive and unchallengeable. Who would dare be accused of NOT wanting to Save The Planet?
Quite a few of us, actually. Let us take a look at which aspects of life these totalitarians intend to effect: where you may live, your housing materials, construction, means of and amount of heating, your diet, what food is grown and how much of it, what travel you may undertake, its means, and how much of it, what entertainment you may pursue, its form, and how much of it, what you may grow for decoration and how much of it, what you may consume, what you may discard, and finally what you may say and what you may think. Anyone who thinks the last items are exaggeration hasn't heard the ravings of James Hansen lately.
It is a proposal modest enough to make a Stalinist's head spin, to make a Mussolini regret that he hadn't thought of it first, to make a Hitler green...with envy. It is no less than their own creed, word for word: "it will be better for you in the long run if we control you."
This is totalitarianism. Literally. No hyperbole, no rhetorical license. It didn't die, it merely changed form.
Ugh. “Single” = “single one” and “effect = affect.” I hate it when I do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.